figmentPez
Staff member
Sorry, don't have links. I didn't think to bookmark them when I read them, and I don't care enough to spend however long it takes to re-find them. You can either believe me or not.
- Status
S
Steven Soderburgin
If you can't provide sources, then I'll continue believing what has been shown over and over by multiple studies from reputable sources, which is that comprehensive sex education is far and away the most effective way to prevent teen pregnancies and the spread of STIs among teens.
It's called decorum. You don't have to allow something you don't like under your very roof. Particularly not when you're master of the house. Perhaps they can wait until they reach the age of consent? I did that. It's hard but do-able. Heh, that's what she said. After all, having sex does not make a boy a man. The ability to face the consequences and take responsibility for one's actions does. To be honest, I don't think modern teenagers can do that. I certainly couldn't have at 17. Those proposition lines that you saw a few posts back? Those are real, and they WORK because teens are dumb. I'll admit I was dumb when I was a teenager, and so were the rest of you. Don't kid yourselves.
Until not too long ago, the father would have been well within his rights to kill the guy if he got her pregnant. Honor would have decreed that he either married her or died. Greek and Roman fathers could have strangled him or taken a dagger to his throat. Renaissance and Enlightenment-era brothers or cousins could have challenged him to swords or pistols at dawn. The family's reputation was everything and decided if the children could marry well. Of course I'm glad we've moved on from that because honor killings can quickly spiral out of control and turn into feuds.
But what authority can the father have now? Of course I'm not suggesting murder or challenging him to a duel. I'm not even suggesting kicking the sleazeball's ass. But is he supposed to be completely powerless? Is he supposed to just sit back and think, "Oh well, they're just fucking?"
Cajungal
Staff member
I'd have preferred your Catholic school. We didn't learn about any type of birth control in "Family Life" class. We learned about deodorant, pregnancy, NFP/motherhood, and why you shouldn't douche.
rly:In public school we were told about safe and unsafe sex. Condoms, pills, foam, all that stuff. There was also a bit about how to resist pressure (and yes, those same cheesy pickup lines were used). At the beginning and end of the sex-ed week, though, we were told that the only 100% sure way to avoid STD's or pregnancy was to abstain.
Teenagers' pickup line: "I just want to show you how much I love you."
Adults' pickup line: "Are you a parking ticket? 'Cause you've got fine written all over you."
You wouldn't believe some of the tags this thread has now.
Teenagers' pickup line: "I just want to show you how much I love you."
Adults' pickup line: "Are you a parking ticket? 'Cause you've got fine written all over you."
You wouldn't believe some of the tags this thread has now.
I'd have preferred your Catholic school. We didn't learn about any type of birth control in "Family Life" class. We learned about deodorant, pregnancy, NFP/motherhood, and why you shouldn't douche.
rly:[/QUOTE]Not to turn this political, but this may be a difference that socialized healthcare has something to do with...
A
Armadillo
I think a lot of people here are still in the "teenage" or "pre-kids" mindset as it regards sex. TRUST ME, when you look into your newborn son or daughter's eyes for the first time, everything changes.
S
SeraRelm
*points at Dave again*
We more or less got that too. A pity almost everybody was sleeping around for some years when we had the "experts" come and talk about that.
EDIT: And that the second "expert" was not an expert in anything, just an ass that, in very "I'm modern and straightforward" way told us homosexuality was wrong, anal sex was wrong, masturbation was wrong... EVERYTHING was wrong. Except straight basic sexual intercourse.
I still remember when we got back at the classroom and our teacher, who was this old kind lady who I would have never though I would hear talk about sex decided she was so outraged about all that talk that she decided we would not have our class of catalan literature and talk about lesbians instead.
C
Chazwozel
It's called decorum. You don't have to allow something you don't like under your very roof. Particularly not when you're master of the house. Perhaps they can wait until they reach the age of consent? I did that. It's hard but do-able. Heh, that's what she said. After all, having sex does not make a boy a man. The ability to face the consequences and take responsibility for one's actions does. To be honest, I don't think modern teenagers can do that. I certainly couldn't have at 17. Those proposition lines that you saw a few posts back? Those are real, and they WORK because teens are dumb. I'll admit I was dumb when I was a teenager, and so were the rest of you. Don't kid yourselves.
Until not too long ago, the father would have been well within his rights to kill the guy if he got her pregnant. Honor would have decreed that he either married her or died. Greek and Roman fathers could have strangled him or taken a dagger to his throat. Renaissance and Enlightenment-era brothers or cousins could have challenged him to swords or pistols at dawn. The family's reputation was everything and decided if the children could marry well. Of course I'm glad we've moved on from that because honor killings can quickly spiral out of control and turn into feuds.
But what authority can the father have now? Of course I'm not suggesting murder or challenging him to a duel. I'm not even suggesting kicking the sleazeball's ass. But is he supposed to be completely powerless? Is he supposed to just sit back and think, "Oh well, they're just fucking?"[/QUOTE]
I just had to come in and say you fucking rule Iron Brig. No sarcasm. No underlying jab. You just fucking rule. Don't let these weenies tell you otherwise. Let me tell you something about the community here. Most of them pee sitting down. That's the kind of men you're talking to. I'm sure that they'd rage to the max if they caught their daughter as in the OP article. They just wouldn't have the balls to follow through with ruffing the asshole up. I mean according to Kissenger, you're supposed to serve the boyfriend tea and crumpets before sending him off with a stern lecture and a pat on the head.
---------- Post added at 05:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 AM ----------
No, you're evil. Sideline parents always know what's best for your kid, especially if they have no kids of their own. Yup. You should do what Kissybear suggests and allow them to fuck in the next room. At least they're safe right?
---------- Post added at 05:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 AM ----------
Yes, it's better and effective when parents are dipshits and feel it's the school system's responsibility to teach their kids about sex. Some education is better than no education about it at all. If you raise your kid with self respect and the understanding that they're too young for it, at least they'll think twice before going through with it.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
I'd have preferred your Catholic school. We didn't learn about any type of birth control in "Family Life" class. We learned about deodorant, pregnancy, NFP/motherhood, and why you shouldn't douche.
rly:[/QUOTE]o.o?
o.ô??
o.Ô??
M
Morgoth
It's called decorum. You don't have to allow something you don't like under your very roof. Particularly not when you're master of the house. Perhaps they can wait until they reach the age of consent? I did that. It's hard but do-able. Heh, that's what she said. After all, having sex does not make a boy a man. The ability to face the consequences and take responsibility for one's actions does. To be honest, I don't think modern teenagers can do that. I certainly couldn't have at 17. Those proposition lines that you saw a few posts back? Those are real, and they WORK because teens are dumb. I'll admit I was dumb when I was a teenager, and so were the rest of you. Don't kid yourselves.
Until not too long ago, the father would have been well within his rights to kill the guy if he got her pregnant. Honor would have decreed that he either married her or died. Greek and Roman fathers could have strangled him or taken a dagger to his throat. Renaissance and Enlightenment-era brothers or cousins could have challenged him to swords or pistols at dawn. The family's reputation was everything and decided if the children could marry well. Of course I'm glad we've moved on from that because honor killings can quickly spiral out of control and turn into feuds.
But what authority can the father have now? Of course I'm not suggesting murder or challenging him to a duel. I'm not even suggesting kicking the sleazeball's ass. But is he supposed to be completely powerless? Is he supposed to just sit back and think, "Oh well, they're just fucking?"[/quote]
I just had to come in and say you fucking rule Iron Brig. No sarcasm. No underlying jab. You just fucking rule. Don't let these weenies tell you otherwise. Let me tell you something about the community here. Most of them pee sitting down. That's the kind of men you're talking to. I'm sure that they'd rage to the max if they caught their daughter as in the OP article. They just wouldn't have the balls to follow through with ruffing the asshole up. I mean according to Kissenger, you're supposed to serve the boyfriend tea and crumpets before sending him off with a stern lecture and a pat on the head.
---------- Post added at 05:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 AM ----------
No, you're evil. Sideline parents always know what's best for your kid, especially if they have no kids of their own. Yup. You should do what Kissybear suggests and allow them to fuck in the next room. At least they're safe right?
---------- Post added at 05:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 AM ----------
Yes, it's better and effective when parents are dipshits and feel it's the school system's responsibility to teach their kids about sex. Some education is better than no education about it at all. If you raise your kid with self respect and the understanding that they're too young for it, at least they'll think twice before going through with it.[/quote]
Dude, I know for a fact I didn't pee in your morning coffee; did the dog take a dump on the carpet again? Relax. I know Kissinger means well. I wouldn't take advice from him about child rearing, if he has no kids of his own, but it appears he means well. Just smile and nod and move on.
M
Morgoth
To be fair, I pointed my thread out to him.
Do men... sorry.... boys really say those things and expect a positive reaction?[/QUOTE]
Well yes, but boys talk to themselves a lot, so you can't be too surprised.
S
Steven Soderburgin
Hmm, it's almost as if there could be a... what's the word.... balance? Medium? Between those two options?
Nah, that's crazy.
What point are you trying to make? That because I don't have kids, I don't understand that it's actually okay to want to shoot or at least violently beat someone who is having consensual sex with my 16 year old child?
Look, I get the protective instinct. Even people without kids have that. I understand that. But your child does not belong to you. Is it a bad choice for them to be having sex at a young age? Probably, but if they've been prepared, then they'll likely be somewhat smart about it to minimize risks. Then you can call the parents of whoever they were with and let them know, then sit down with your child and talk to them about the choices they are making and why they should reconsider their choices. There's no reason to go into a blind rage. Kids make mistakes. Teenagers, doubly so.
I'm not trying to sideline parent. This is just my perspective on the matter. Plus, I find violence abhorrent and parents who treat their children as property extremely creepy and likely damaging.
It's also better and effective when the parents aren't dipshits and teach the kids about responsibility and self respect as well. When the school REINFORCES these things, then it's incredibly effective.
Also, many parents are not perfect. The school giving the kids a comprehensive education is still very effective even when the parents don't do shit with regard to teaching their kids about sex.
Basically, I'm not sure what your point is or if you're even arguing against my points.
As for the rest of your post, you're kind of a pathetic loser who has to resort to strawman arguments and emasculating language to try to make it seem like you actually have anything to say.
Cajungal
Staff member
I'd have preferred your Catholic school. We didn't learn about any type of birth control in "Family Life" class. We learned about deodorant, pregnancy, NFP/motherhood, and why you shouldn't douche.
rly:[/QUOTE]o.o?
o.ô??
o.Ô??[/QUOTE]
Yeah... well the deodorant because we were getting to be adolescents. We watched a video about it.
The beautiful thing is.. when my mom found out, she had dad bring home some Mayo Clinic software from work so she could teach me about sex herself. Mom's awesome.
M
Morgoth
Hmm, it's almost as if there could be a... what's the word.... balance? Medium? Between those two options?
Nah, that's crazy.
What point are you trying to make? That because I don't have kids, I don't understand that it's actually okay to want to shoot or at least violently beat someone who is having consensual sex with my 16 year old child?
Look, I get the protective instinct. Even people without kids have that. I understand that. But your child does not belong to you. Is it a bad choice for them to be having sex at a young age? Probably, but if they've been prepared, then they'll likely be somewhat smart about it to minimize risks. Then you can call the parents of whoever they were with and let them know, then sit down with your child and talk to them about the choices they are making and why they should reconsider their choices. There's no reason to go into a blind rage. Kids make mistakes. Teenagers, doubly so.
I'm not trying to sideline parent. This is just my perspective on the matter. Plus, I find violence abhorrent and parents who treat their children as property extremely creepy and likely damaging.
It's also better and effective when the parents aren't dipshits and teach the kids about responsibility and self respect as well. When the school REINFORCES these things, then it's incredibly effective.
Also, many parents are not perfect. The school giving the kids a comprehensive education is still very effective even when the parents don't do shit with regard to teaching their kids about sex.
Basically, I'm not sure what your point is or if you're even arguing against my points.
As for the rest of your post, you're kind of a pathetic loser who has to resort to strawman arguments and emasculating language to try to make it seem like you actually have anything to say.
[/QUOTE]You pee sitting down?
S
Steven Soderburgin
Only when shitting.
M
Morgoth
Touche'
I guess my big beef with your argument is the part about owning your kids. No they're not property, but you do own them. They're yours. You made them. From age 0-coming of age, it's your job to train and guide them to be their own person; they're your responsibility. Why do you think if a kid commits an illegal crime that kid's parents are the one's who are fined or punished? A person's child under the law is registered as their dependent. That is to say they still have their own rights from abuse etc..
Let me ask you something. Do you believe a 13 or 16 year old has the same rights as an adult? By that I mean, do they have the right to sue their parents for things like giving them a curfew to abide by, rules to follow, chores to do. You're basing your whole argument as if kids and teenagers are little mini-adults and that they can handle the responsibilities of adults. More often than not, parents know what's best for their tennager, more so than the teenager themselves. That whole spiel of yours about sexual exploration is kinda of bullcrap. You're certainly entitled to believe what you want to believe about how to raise a kid, but that sort of teenage mentality (all knowledge and no experience) really isn't worth the time for actual parents to muster over.
---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 AM ----------
Man, I have to deadbolt the door and turn the fan on if I want some peace and quiet, lest I want to be walked in on by a 3 and 6 year old, or hear banging on the door. "Daddy, what you doin' in there!" They somehow always know when dad's in the John.
Z
Zonker
Got a call from the school counselor yesterday, my 10 year old daughter has broken out crying three times the past few weeks because she misses me so much, I had promised to call but didn't. I called her yesterday and we told each other "I love you" ten times and she started crying again. Counselor has offered to put together a group for children of divorced parents.
You really, really, really would not understand until you have your own daughter.
I will probably always think of my daughter as the six year old cuddle bear who loves nothing more than to be tucked in at night with her stuffed animals and a hug and a kiss from her daddy.
So I don't know how I would react in a similar situation, but I know I would be extremely upset and irrational. Who knows what I would do? Don't have any guns and if I did I wouldn't shoot, certainly wouldn't aim at his crotch, I'm still grieving over Sean Taylor who was shot in the femoral artery and bled to death, wouldn't inflict that on anybody for anything. But I can see myself beating the crap out of him, easily.
If I caught my son doing it in my bed I would beat the crap out of him too, where's the double standard?
You really, really, really would not understand until you have your own daughter.
I will probably always think of my daughter as the six year old cuddle bear who loves nothing more than to be tucked in at night with her stuffed animals and a hug and a kiss from her daddy.
So I don't know how I would react in a similar situation, but I know I would be extremely upset and irrational. Who knows what I would do? Don't have any guns and if I did I wouldn't shoot, certainly wouldn't aim at his crotch, I'm still grieving over Sean Taylor who was shot in the femoral artery and bled to death, wouldn't inflict that on anybody for anything. But I can see myself beating the crap out of him, easily.
If I caught my son doing it in my bed I would beat the crap out of him too, where's the double standard?
S
Steven Soderburgin
If that's what you think my argument is, then you are seriously misreading me, or I'm not being clear.
I don't think of teenagers as mini-adults who can handle every responsibility or situation. I think teenagers definitely need guidance, but as they grow older, they're going to become more and more independent and no matter what rules you place on them or what guidance you give them, they are going to go out there and make their own decisions and mistakes. That's part of becoming an adult, and sexual growth is part of that as well.
Teenagers are going to have sex. They've always had sex, they always will. I did not ever say that you should be willing to sit downstairs listening to your son or daughter's bed bang against the wall. But I do feel that you shouldn't shame them or tell them that exploring their sexuality is bad or something they should hide, because it's perfectly natural and healthy as long as it's done in a smart and safe way. That's where parents come in. Answer questions they have openly and honestly, teach them they need to respect themselves, that sort of thing. Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't be happy if my son or daughter were having sex at 16, but I couldn't really say too much about it because that's when I first had sex. I'd still talk to them about it and let them know that they should probably wait to have sex until they're a little older and a little wiser, that they could ask me questions if they had them, and that it's nothing to be ashamed of.
I'm 26 years old and I don't have kids. I'm probably never going to have kids of my own (being half-gay and in a gay relationship but who knows), but I may adopt (if I can, woo). So yeah, this is coming from a no experience standpoint, and in time my position may change. But who knows.
My main objections to some of the attitudes shown in the thread are the violent overreactions (not all of the reactions expressed were violent in nature, but they were still pretty overblown, imo) and the virginal woman ideal combined with the attitude of owning your daughter and her sexuality (though that was pretty limited and mostly earlier in the thread, and there was some slight double-standard talk but once again that was pretty limited).
M
Morgoth
I guess my counter to that is that some people can be violent and it's a very default setting for handling situations for a lot of people. Anger is usually the first knee-jerk response to certain kinds of stress. That's just the way people are. I'm just trying to be honest in saying that if I were in the situation of the OP, my initial reaction would be to break up the encounter, asap, probably using force. I understand that you seem to be very pacifist by nature, but you have to realize that not everyone is, and you can't deny that violence is as much a part of being human as breathing no matter how civilized we like to pretend to be.
S
Steven Soderburgin
I don't deny that, but I still find it abhorrent.
S
SeraRelm
You wouldn't beat the crap out of the girl?
You still seem to be assuming it's the male who pushed for it?
:noidea:
Z
Zonker
You expect me to hit a girl? What kind of monster are you?
S
Steven Soderburgin
What if you caught your son doing it in his bed?
K
Kitty Sinatra
You just described my last Saturday night.
Minus the cockapoo (I don't do anal)
And it was the she-male who was Lebanase
The hooker was Ukrainian
Z
Zonker
Anyway I don't think it's a "he pushed for it" thing, it's more a "the beatings will continue until moral improves" thing. I didn't say it would be a rational reaction.
- Status